Health promotion intervention for hygienic disposal of children's faeces in a rural area of Nigeria

Abstract

Objective Community-based health promotion intervention for improving unhygienic disposal of children's faeces was conducted in a rural area of Nigeria. Setting The study was conducted in Ife South Local Government area of Osun State, Nigeria. Design The study was conducted in 10 randomly selected rural villages: five control and five active. Method The intervention, which lasted for nine months, consisted of hygienic use of chamber-pots for the disposal of children's faeces, discouraging children from defecation around households, construction and use of affordable Ventilated Improved Latrines (VIP) and hand-washing with soap and water by mothers after cleaning up the children's faeces. It was undertaken by primary health care workers, using group and individual discussions, plus demonstrations to mothers and community leaders. Results Significantly more mothers in the intervention communities (68 per cent compared with 6 per cent) were using chamber-pots ( pow) for defecation, a much smaller proportion of children in the active group (25 per cent compared with 72 per cent) defecated on the floor of the households. Significantly more households in the intervention group upgraded their unsanitary latrines to sanitary ones by ventilating them (7 per cent compared with 3 per cent). Also, significantly more mothers washed their hands with soap and water (20 per cent in the intervention group compared with 9 per cent in the control group). Conclusions This study has brought about positive changes in the knowledge, attitude and practice of mothers and their children towards the disposal of children's faeces in rural communities. The study therefore has significant implications for the development of programmes for the control of childhood diarrhoea in developing countries.

Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review

“…In Hoque et al (1994/1996) it was shown that latrine use after the intervention increased by 89%, however no standard deviations were provided, so it was not possible to calculate confidence intervals. Adherence outcomes were measured in two different experimental studies, describing a sanitation only intervention, and a significant increase in overall latrine use (RR 2.59, 95% CI [1.58, 4.25]), and latrine use in children up to 24 months (RR 7.95, 95% CI [4.72, 13.40]) was shown (Pattanayak et al, 2009; Jinadu et al, 2007), however no difference in latrine use in children between 25 and 60 months could be shown (RR 4.74, 95% CI [0.24, 95.33]) (Jinadu et al, 2007). The adherence outcomes had a low certainty of evidence (Table 20).…”

“…Elements of psychosocial theory Andrade, 2013Guiteras et al (2015bHuda et al, 2012Jinadu et al, 2007Kochurani et al, 2009Patil et al, 2013Pattanayak et al, 2009Phuanukoonnon et al, 2013Pickering et al, 2015Waterkeyn & Cairncross, 2005) Younes et al, 2015Arnold et al, 2009Biran et al, 2009Briceno et al, 2015Cameron et al, 2013Dickey et al (2015) Galiani et al, 2012Pinfold, 1999Abiola et al, 2012Bowen et al, 2013Caruso et al, 2014Graves et al (2011) Guiteras et al (2015a) Kaewchana et al, 2012Lansdown et al, 2002Mascie-Taylor et al, 2003Pickering et al, 2013Seimetz et al, 2016Wang et al, 2013Zhang et al (2013 Figure 6 also lists the specific approach in each study and the WASH component for each study.…”

“…In 18 of the 32 studies (56%), not enough information was provided to determine if the method of random sequence generation was adequate. Abiola et al, 2012Biran et al, 2009Biran et al, 2014Bowen et al, 2013Briceno et al, 2015Cameron et al, 2013Caruso et al, 2014Chase & Do, 2012Galiani et al, 2012Graves et al, 2011Guiteras et al, 2015Guiteras et al, 2015bHuda et al, 2012Jinadu et al, 2007Kaewchana et al, 2012Lansdown et al, 2002Lhakhang et al, 2015Luby et al, 2010Mascie-Taylor et al, 2003Patil et al, 2013Pattanayak et al, 2009Phuanukoonnon et al, 2013Pickering et al, 2013Pickering et al, 2015Tumwebaze & Mosler, 2015Wang et al, 2013Zhang et al, 2013 green: low risk of bias; yellow: no information; red: high risk of bias…”

“…The certainty of evidence for the uptake outcomes was assessed as very low (Table 22). Significant outcomes were also shown in the period less than 12 months after the programme period ("adherence"): child faeces disposal (RR 2.16, 95% CI [1.60, 2.91]) and no faeces lying around (RR 1.44, 95% CI [1.27, 1.65]), in a study implementing a sanitation-only intervention (Jinadu et al, 2007). The certainty of evidence for the adherence outcomes was assessed as moderate (Table 23).…”

The effect of young children's faeces disposal practices on child growth: evidence from 34 countries

“…Educational and behaviour change interventions have been tested for improving child defecation and faeces disposal practices and, although they can be successful , many have failed to show sustained improvement in child defecation or faeces disposal practices . Recent work suggests that reusable diapers and child potties may be helpful for promoting safe child faeces management as well as improving local tools for picking up child faeces ; however, there is not yet evidence from completed trials regarding the success of these enabling products.…”